충남대학교 외국학술지지원센터

글로벌메뉴

주메뉴

이용안내
원문검색
센터소개
- 소개
- 연혁
- 운영시간
- 조직
게시판
- 이용안내
- 원문검색
- 센터소개
  - 소개
  - 연혁
  - 운영시간
  - 조직
- 게시판

상세정보

|Home >
상세정보

검색결과 돌아가기

부가기능

MARC보기

發明의 新規性判斷에 관한 硏究:同一性判斷을 中心으로

상세 프로파일

상세정보
자료유형	학위논문
개인저자	구본경 김동준
서명/저자사항	發明의 新規性判斷에 관한 硏究:同一性判斷을 中心으로/具本炅 저.
발행사항	대전: 忠南大學校大學院, 2013.
형태사항	94 p.: 삽화; 26 cm.
딸림자료
대등서명	Study on the Judgement of Novelty of Invention

학위논문주기	학위논문(석사)--忠南大學校大學院:특허학과 特許法務 전공,2013. 2
일반주기	충남대학교 논문은 저작권에 의해 보호받습니다. 지도교수: 金東俊
서지주기	참고문헌 : p. 89-91
시스템주기	Requires PDF file reader(application/pdf)
언어	한국어
cnu.dcollection.net : Fulltext Available(Display Print Save)

소장정보

소장정보

분관대출 서가에 책이 없을 때... 도서 Pick-Up서비스 찾아가는대출서비스 인쇄

메세지가 없습니다
No.	등록번호	청구기호	소장처	도서상태	반납예정일	예약	서비스
1	DM157846	법학T 1F6 013-1	법학도서관/5층 학위논문/	대출불가(별치)

초록

초록

초록 일부

초록 전체

  The purpose of the patent system is, by granting patent rights to an applicant who discloses his/her invention to the public, aimed at contributing to the development of related industries. Therefore novelty would be one of the most important and basic requirements of patent registration.
  In this paper, criteria on the judgement of novelty, the method of judging novelty, and the distinction between novelty and inventive step have been studied.
  The concept of ‘substantially identical’ can be generally used in identity judgement of novelty, first-to-file requirement and so-called extended first-to-file requirement in Korea. However, it may not be used for identity judgement of novelty in Japan.
  According to theories or judicial cases, if the number in ‘invention limited by number’ can be selected freely by a person skilled in the art or does not have special effects or critical meaning, the invention would not have novelty.
  ‘Well known and commonly used art’ can be added in one or more cited inventions, in judging novelty or inventive step.
  One of the criteria on the judgement of novelty is time. If the time of application or publication can be recorded, the judgement of novelty would be much easier.
  ‘Publicly known’ and ‘publicly worked’ are strictly distinguished from each other in the regulation of the Patent Act. According to theories or judicial cases, ‘publicly known’ means the state of being recognizable to an unspecified majority, while ‘publicly worked’ is working, use or utilization of invention in the state of recognition.
  According to the regulation of the Patent Act, the judgement of novelty could not be a precondition for the judgement of inventive step.
  Though there is a gray area between what is novelty and what is inventive step, the judgement should be made separately because there are different requirements for novelty and inventive step in registering a patent.

제1장 서론 1
제1절 연구의 목적 1
제2절 연구의 범위 및 방법 2
제2장 발명의 신규성 4
제1절 신규성의 의의 4
제2절 신규성 판단 기준 6
  1. 시적 기준 6
  2. 장소적 기준 7
  3. 신규성 상실 사유 8
제3절 발명의 신규성 판단 13
  1. 발명의 동일성 13
  2. 출원발명과 인용발명의 특정 15...